Heh, I don't think anyone can really argue as to whether or not real swords were ever ornamented after seeing this discussion. Some are downright beautiful pieces art, as well as deadly weapons. Win-win all around.

definitely agreed, however, there is something very important to mention.

Most of the swords displayed in this thread are ceremonial swords. Most swords that would be used in battle had little to no ornaments, especially in the blade (getting an etching that someone took a lot of time to complete scratched/destroyed by another blade is not something most people would want). With that being said (and using the same comparison as the OP), would I bring out an Anduril to a battle... well, it's too heavy (as many manufacturers have mentioned, mainly due to the pommel) and there are simply better performing swords out there, which, though not as "pretty" get the job done better.

*Let's use Conan's sword for this one... any of the swords displayed here would be a better choice, and they would not break the belt supporting it... (oh boy, I can feel Conan fans charging at me... better get my knight out... and a shield, which they can't use *muhahahaha*)

I viewed the posts in this thread, and saw beautiful examples of swords/rapiers, etc. through history. I feel there is a direct correlation between artistic/architectural elements, and the ornateness of weaponry in each era. Attached is an image of the statue of Margrave Ekkehard, and his wife on the West portal of Naumburg Cathedral in Saxony (sculpted C. 1250). This single-hand blade is a prime example of the "elegance of simplicity", seen in the 13th C. vaulting of the cathedral's interior, the marriage of function and design. What impresses me most, is the mass of the pommel. Imagine the force, fed by rage, Ekkehard could achieve when his non-sword hand grabbed it for a two-handed thrust through the mail shirt of an enemy!

Close study reveals hints that both pommel and cross-guard were metal-worked, and probably bejeweled. The artistry of the scabbard, clasps, belts, etc. make it likely his sword had no less attention given to ornamentation. Though he was not depicted in harness, this sword was clearly symbolic of his rank, and likely the finest in his collection. In addition, note the size of his kite shield. The addition of poudrons, knee cops, etc. were beginning to alter the need for the great shields used by Crusader Knights of the prior century.

Edit: I'm adding a quote from Kirk Lee Spencer's reply to Nathan Robinson (Page 2 of this thread.) "The same dizzying overly encrusted decoration we see on most] [swords can also be seen in the architecture and visual arts of this time period (High Renaissance to Rococo). evidently during the high Renaissance a sensibility developed, and was passed through culture, that this "visual attention deficit disorder "was not silly but the very pentacle of perfection." Kirk's, and Nathan's comments infer the same reasoning as my above comparison of the Margrave's sword, and the vaulting of the cathedral where he and his wife are memorialized. Thanks guys! You gentlemen must have studied Art History as I have. Attachment: 130.14 KB, Viewed: 9369 timesSwords do not need to be gaudy to be gorgeous.Il est apelée de Montfort. Il est el Mond, et si est fort. Si ad grant chevalrie; Je vois et je m’ acort. Il eime le droit, et het le tort. Si avera le mestrie!

Another one which I don't think was posted before... The sword of Louis the 13th, king of France (dated 1614). Currently held by the Musée de l'Armée in Paris.

As you can see it bears the portraits of the previous kings of France... On the first pic are "Henricus Magnus" (Henri the Fourth, Louis the 13th's father), "Carolus" (most probably Carolus Magnus), "Henri III", and (I think) "Franciscus II".

A neat idea, combining sword and family tree... Most logical for a king.

That is a fantastic sword. Do you by chance have any images that include a full close up of the blade? If so, would you mind posting them on the Rosarial Swords thread? The markings on the blade look like the ones we are trying to research by collecting images and data.Pamela Muir

The website and the literature about the collections of the Musée de l'Armée only mention iron and gold as materials for this sword. But I think this description omits the portraits.

Another art book (Raymond Cogniat, Jacques Hillairet: Les Musées d'art de Paris, 1967) says these medallions are cameos, which is far more likely. Thus they would be semi-precious, "layered" stones (I'd guess onyx, a common stone for cameos, given the black/white contrast).

By the way, here is a picture of this sword's scabbard's chape, which apparently also held a medallion, but it is missing.

Craftsmanship is definitely the word here. As mentioned above at a time when carrying a sword was more to do with fashion and dress became somewhat an effeminate affair in Europe. The rise to more ornate metalwork to keep up with the trend lent more toward the jeweller as hilt-maker rather than the smith. That I believe is the main dividing line. Most of us I suppose associate the austerity of line and total practicality of the sword of war with a sort of male romanticism. Any embellishments at that period were generally funerary. I will say, thankfully, that the skills required to produce works of art in metal are not dead, though certainly not cheap, and that in my day, some forty years ago, a sword smith was only a surname. If a man can see beyond himself and reason with all things then it's time to leave this earth and rise into the heavens.

Personally my impression of historical examples is that their ornamentation leads towards the "tacky but functional" line, while modern ornamentation can lead towards the "aesthetically pleasing but impractical" direction. Which highlights the fact that swords are no longer in general use as tools of war, and their primary purpose today is actually ornament itself; further decoration being a mere enhancement of that.

someone along this thread line mentioned things wrong with modern fantasy swords like being too heavy flaired blade, rat tail tang, and stainless steel blades with plastic jewels,

to me thats not over the top ornamentation as it is a bad sword period, and such bad construction isnt limited to over the top swords either there are PLENTLY of swords out there that have clean lines, and simple but nice ornementation of the guard sheath and pommel, (ok these aremore bad historical sword copies) but the quality of the steel and hilt materials is simply garbage their ill fitting etc. this is especially prevelent in the katana and ninja sword market or to put it simply..

wallhangers.

so its worth seperating the difference betwen over the top and just shoddy construction. ou can hav swords which are still too heavy and impossible to hold even if theyre made of quality materials and constructon methods i.e a proper width tang and proper steel blade. for example.
the hanwei ninjato isan excellent example because it is still technically a fantasy sword because there is close to no evidence for a sword like that existing let alone it being the standard weapon of shinobi.
then we have the sword of leonidis from 300. arguably that sword is more lethal than the kopis or the xiphos
theres also the hanwei dark sentinel
united cutlery and windlass steelcrafts is full of swords that would make any reenactor go EW no way, but

and as for historically, over the top onemented swords nd not just swords, its abit on a tangent but theres also armour pieces like parade armour.
but back to swords what always comes to mind is the fate of the rapier and especially the smallsword. we see court swords whoes knuckle bow is a chain encasing jewels like a necklace
http://www.lawranceordnance.com/khaki_and_gre...avalry.php this is a modern sword technically since its made now, but it has all the flare and ornementation that most court and officers swords would have in the napoleonic era and before,
especially when compared with the actual british cavalry sabre pattern http://www.lawranceordnance.com/khaki_and_gre...avalry.phpAttachment: 30.01 KB, Viewed: 7778 timesthe King of the Kinnaras sword hanwei replica of existing historical sword apparentlycontained in the shaolin temple, reconstruction for commercial saleAttachment: 14.07 KB, Viewed: 7778 timeshanwei dark sentinel, 'fnctional fantasy sword'

the point of the topic, unless im mistaken is looking at modern 'fantasy swords' and how they are made ornamental. and the (quite false) assumption that historical swords are all fairly clean lines and such where the reality is that there are many swords that are just as gaudy even if those are somewhat impractical for battle.
and showing those highly ornamental swords, as well as discussing what makes a beautiful sword.
or something along those lines
what did i miss?

the point im making isnt in disagreement with the OP's point infact i have a book looking at that famous austrian armoury, the Landeszeughaus - Graz Armoury which shows many highly ornamental items, not just word, but polearms and armour.
im merely poining out that fantasy sword doesnt neccesarily equal those precepts of being super gaudy etc,

In response to Simon G's pictures of the sword of Francis the 1st ... I just have to post pictures of the back of this sword. It does have a clear front and back - but why would they decide to only save gold on the pommel?

now to show some of those smallswords i mentioned before
sword found here http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?p=97255 wouldnt let me upload picturesAttachment: 36.61 KB, Viewed: 7691 timessmallsword, probably belonged to Admiral Lord Leveson Gower (1740-92),Attachment: 19.34 KB, Viewed: 7691 timessword presented to Major general Eyre coote 1797-8Attachment: 5.87 KB, Viewed: 7691 timesname or owner or which nation it belongs to i dont know but i definately recognise this as a officers mamluke sword note the ornate chain running from the pommel to the guard, and the styling on the throat,Attachment: 233.89 KB, Viewed: 7691 timeswhile i realise its sort of stretching both the sword and super ornamental criteria. this was like the dress sword, more for status then as a effective weapon

the point of the topic, unless im mistaken is looking at modern 'fantasy swords' and how they are made ornamental. and the (quite false) assumption that historical swords are all fairly clean lines and such where the reality is that there are many swords that are just as gaudy even if those are somewhat impractical for battle.
and showing those highly ornamental swords, as well as discussing what makes a beautiful sword.
or something along those lines
what did i miss?

You pretty much got it.

The point was the first sentence in the topic, "There are a lot of misconceptions being posted on the various forums lately regarding fantasy swords being so much more ornate than anything history has brought us."

Largely, I was pointing out that many people do not realize that history has brought us much more "fantastic" swords than can be found in modern-made swords. The techniques, materials, and investment put into these pieces from history is often far beyond those achieved in modern examples.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum